Misplaced Pages

Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:04, 12 April 2015 view sourceHeaney5551 (talk | contribs)81 edits →Neutrality← Previous edit Revision as of 15:22, 12 April 2015 view source TheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers135,756 edits →NeutralityNext edit →
Line 137: Line 137:


:::Well, I think we both know you're heavily biased and wrong here (the article most certainly ''is'' biased against GamerGate, and I'm not even a GamerGate supporter!). But I don't have the time, energy, or influence to debate this, so I'm going to return to the Military section of Misplaced Pages, where we keep things neutral, constantly question the bias of ourselves and our fellow editors, and aim to create an objective encyclopedic entry on the topic at hand. If you can live with yourself destroying the legitimacy and objectivity of Misplaced Pages, then sure, go ahead. But I won't pretend to agree with you. ] (]) 15:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC) :::Well, I think we both know you're heavily biased and wrong here (the article most certainly ''is'' biased against GamerGate, and I'm not even a GamerGate supporter!). But I don't have the time, energy, or influence to debate this, so I'm going to return to the Military section of Misplaced Pages, where we keep things neutral, constantly question the bias of ourselves and our fellow editors, and aim to create an objective encyclopedic entry on the topic at hand. If you can live with yourself destroying the legitimacy and objectivity of Misplaced Pages, then sure, go ahead. But I won't pretend to agree with you. ] (]) 15:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
::::While the article does not present Gamergators views of themselves as a noble movement preserving the sanctity of gaming through its activities of routing out corruption in gaming journalism, that doesn't mean the article is biased. It just means that the reliable sources dont buy gamergators bullshit and so we dont either. -- ] 15:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

===Checking for neutrality (and other stuff)=== ===Checking for neutrality (and other stuff)===
Ok here I go. I'll be ignoring the lede because people spend far too much time focusing ont he lede and ignoring the rest of the article. Ok here I go. I'll be ignoring the lede because people spend far too much time focusing ont he lede and ignoring the rest of the article.

Revision as of 15:22, 12 April 2015

Skip to table of contents
Commons-emblem-issue.svgWARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES This page is subject to discretionary sanctions; any editor who repeatedly or egregiously fails to adhere to applicable policies may be blocked, topic-banned, or otherwise restricted. Note also that editors on this article are subject to a limit of one revert per 24 hours (with exceptions for vandalism or BLP violations). Violation may result in blocks without further warning. Enforcement should be requested at WP:AE.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconVideo games Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFeminism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconJournalism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconInternet culture Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
? view · edit Frequently asked questions

To view an answer, click the link to the right of the question.

Q1: Can I use a particular article as a source? A1: What sources can be used in Misplaced Pages is governed by our reliable sources guideline, which requires "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If you have a question about whether or not a particular source meets this policy, a good place to ask is the Reliable sources noticeboard. Q2: I found a YouTube video, a post on 4chan/Reddit/9GAG/8chan, or a blog that relates to Gamergate. Can I use it as a source in the article? A2: All sources used in the article must comply with Misplaced Pages's standards for reliable sources. Self-published sources cannot be used for biographical content on a living person. If such sources were used, then gossip, slander and libelous material may find its way into the article, which would a) tarnish the quality of Misplaced Pages's information and b) potentially open up Misplaced Pages to legal action. For further information, please read the guidelines for sources in biographies of living people. Q3: Why is Misplaced Pages preventing me from editing the article or talk page? Why is this article biased towards one party or the other? A3: Content on Misplaced Pages is required to maintain a neutral point of view as much as possible, and is based on information from reliable sources (Vox, The Wall Street Journal, etc.). The article and its talk page are under protection due to constant edit warring and addition of unsourced or unreliably sourced information prohibited by our policy on biographical content concerning living people (see WP:BLP). Q4: The "reliable sources" don't tell the full story. Why can't we use other sources? A4: Verifiability in reliable sources governs what we write. Misplaced Pages documents what the reliable sources say. If those sources are incorrect or inadequate, it is up to other reliable sources to correct this. Misplaced Pages's role is not to correct the mistakes of the world; it is to write an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable sources.
In addition, this article falls under concerns relating to content on living persons. Sources that go into unverified or unsupported claims about living persons cannot be included at all. Editors should review the talk page archives here before suggesting a new source from non-mainstream sources to make sure that it hasn't been discussed previously.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
  • Jan Rothenberger (10 October 2014). "Der Gesinnungskrieg der Gamer". Der Bund (in German). Dass sich Gegner und Befürworter auch auf Misplaced Pages bekriegten, rief mit Jimmy Wales auch den Chef der Webenzyklopädie auf den Plan. Er mahnte beide Seiten zur Ruhe.
  • Rory Cellan-Jones (16 October 2014). "Twitter and the poisoning of online debate". BBC News. I am not going into the rights and wrongs of Gamergate here - there is what looks like a factual account of this interminable saga on Misplaced Pages, although of course there have been disputes about its objectivity.
  • David Jenkins (20 October 2014). "2014: Video gaming's worst year ever". Metro. The Misplaced Pages entry is as good as any at explaining the basics, and shows how the whole movement is based on nothing but the ravings of a female developer's ex-boyfriend and a level of misogyny that you'd find hard to credit existing in the Middle Ages, let alone the modern day.
  • Caitlin Dewe (29 January 2015). "Gamergate, Misplaced Pages and the limits of 'human knowledge'". The Washington Post. But in a paralyzing battle that has shaken the site's notorious bureaucracy and frustrated the very principles on which Misplaced Pages was built, pro- and anti-Gamergate editors hijacked the Misplaced Pages page on that topic — and spent months vandalizing, weaponizing and name-calling over it.
  • David Auerbach (5 February 2015). "The Misplaced Pages Ouroboros". Slate. ... months of chaos, misconduct, and tendentiousness on Gamergate-related pages ...
  • Amanda Marcotte (6 March 2015). "On Misplaced Pages, Gamergate Refuses to Die". Slate. Gamergaters were ultimately unable to use Misplaced Pages to assert their views as if they were objective reality. Still, Misplaced Pages lost the very people who were trying to guard the gates in the first place. What happens to the next victim of a Misplaced Pages harassment campaign if the defenders are getting squeezed out through this pox-on-both-your-houses system?
  • Lauren C. Williams (6 March 2015). "The 'Five Horsemen' Of Misplaced Pages Paid The Price For Getting Between Trolls And Their Victims". Think Progress. It's interesting how a male feminist had to write a blog about it before anybody realized that there are these problems on Misplaced Pages.
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Draft:Gamergate controversy was copied or moved into Gamergate controversy with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Draft:Gamergate controversy was copied or moved into Gamergate controversy with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 6 September 2014. The result of the discussion was Keep.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.
Archiving icon
Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62


This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gamergate (harassment campaign) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find video game sources: "Gamergate" harassment campaign – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62Auto-archiving period: 2 days 


Sanctions enforcement

All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to discretionary sanctions.

Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.


More on other culture war aspects which GG is the most visible (Hugo Award)

Hugo Award nominations said to be hijacked by people with the same GG mentality. (We discussed this a few weeks ago, the topic scrolled off to archives) --MASEM (t) 17:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

and another one http://www.ew.com/article/2015/04/06/hugo-award-nominations-sad-puppies Krano (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Seems like something more for the Hugo awards article. It's not really anything new, there was controversy last year as well with Vox Day getting a nom. — Strongjam (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, continuing from the previous discussion where a GG-like issue arose in the comics books world, the point of mentioning this as part of the culture war is that GG is being seen as the tip of the iceburg, and more events are being affected due to similar thought processes that GG presented. Obviously we don't need to go into deal, but when discussing how GG is seen as part of a culture war, these events cited by RS should be included since reports have named GG in line with them. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
While I've listed a bunch of articles with this phenomena, I think this is too soon to add to the main article. I do think we should keep an eye open for these kinds of articles. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/04/07/addendum-to-yesterdays-letter/ about the slander, smearing and character assassination. And word of the creators of https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/04/07/fort-living-room/ about the sameness of GamerGate's slander and smearing narrative.However these two may not be within the WP:RS. TheRealVordox (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Two people's personal blogs are absolutely not RS, yes. Parabolist (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. These Blogs not RS. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I've seen screenshots and blogs purporting to show that people associated with the Sad Puppies (the Hugo hijackers' name for themselves) tried to get people associated with GamerGate to help them with their Hugo takeover. So there is a stronger linkage than just an idealogical one or both being part of a larger movement. But I don't have the reliable sources that would pass muster for this here (nor any evidence that the efforts to involve GG had any success). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
talks about potential connections, but nothing proven yet. (A note is that the people leading Sad Puppies have identified themselves, having organization, etc. so the press have tried to talk to them about their motives/goals; however, they have also existed before GG did). I would still keep it to noting that the hijacking has been seen as a similar movement like GG, at the present time, and not connect the two movements until the connection is fully verified. --MASEM (t) 00:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone notice what the Hugo Award page has been doing? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hugo awards page has said nothing, and in the grander scheme of things, probably appropriate there at least at the present time.
The Altantic article that I just saw, that gives us a potential reason to include that GG is actually involved (not just related) via "Rapid Puppies". Still thinking this is a sentence or two to talk about in addition to the "tip of the culture war iceberg" aspect. --MASEM (t) 19:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Rabid puppes, not rapid puppies. One is like Gamergate, the other isn’t. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Masen check out the talk page at Hugo Awards. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, my accidently type, and I can see that they're trying to figure out the approach before updating a number of related pages. We can figure out where they are centralizing the information that relates to this specific incident to link to that here, and thus avoid going into details beyond the connection in both concept as a culture war and the potential engagement of GG members via Rabid Puppies. --MASEM (t) 01:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Think Progress article

Hi! I'd completely forgotten about this, but- given that we've solved any issues of outing (all wikipedia editors named have given their consent for this article to be mentioned), I'm putting it back in the bit up at the top of this page. Let's discuss it here if there are complaints other than outing. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

I am neutral on this issue, but this Misplaced Pages article is laughably biased. Could some objective editors please come in and do a proper neutrality cleanup? I care only about the objectivity of Misplaced Pages, not the subject matter itself. I have tagged the article as having neutrality issues, please do not remove until these are resolved. Heaney5551 (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. On Misplaced Pages, it is generally considered appropriate for editors to use the talk page to identify the specific problems they have with the article in conjunction with adding such a tag. If you do not, it is also considered appropriate for other editors to remove such a tag. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Misplaced Pages? Thanks for the condescension, but I've been editing Misplaced Pages articles under a different username since 2006 (changed because old username was too much like IRL name, and security of current job means I can't do that) and even on this one for well over 6 months. I stick to military equipment articles mostly, but when I read this article, and I'm a feminist, I was shocked at the bias on this page. Where I've edited, the POV-CHECK tag is perfectly fine if you're asking for the article to be checked by those who have a neutral and informed view on the topic. That's why I did not use POV (non-check). I care only about the neutrality of Misplaced Pages, and looking at the history of this page, it's absolutely clear that this page is biased. Even the BBC and The Washington Post article mentioned bias specifically on this page. When the BBC and The Washington Post suggest there is a controversy about bias on a specific Misplaced Pages page, and the article is almost identical in POV since, then there needs to be at least a check. Heaney5551 (talk)
There is controversy about bias for just about every contentious topic on Misplaced Pages. Having controversy about bias does not indicate that serious bias is actually present. And since, while noting the controversy, the BBC recommended this article as a "factual" account, I don't think we need worry at all (quite the contrary) about their opinion. Gamaliel asked you above to identify specific issues with article; it would be helpful if you did so. CIreland (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing on your user talk page except a welcome message, so I assumed you were a new user. No condescension was meant, I was only trying to be friendly. As a veteran editor, please remember our fundamental principle of assume good faith and accept comments in the spirit they were intended. Gamaliel (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, it's been a long time since I've read through the article in its entirety, so I'd be willing to give a detailed POV check and feedback within the next few days. I have no clue if I count as "objective" or not though. Bosstopher (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we should all be able to agree that this article's neutrality is suspect at best as long as Gawker Media, Vox Media, Vice and The Verge are used as sources, since those organizations are/were at the center of this controversy. I'd also argue that ThinkProgress, Daily Beast, Daily Dot are also suspect sources because their articles have trended toward advocacy, not neutral reporting. Skrelk (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times. The core claims in the article are supported by high-quality sources, such as the New York Times, BBC, and Washington Post. The lede is a proportional summary of the article itself, and your changes to the lede do not reflect the claims overwhelmingly made by reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The article is filled with weaseling and innuendo, and with scars from the incessant efforts by Gamergate activists to insert various libels and insinuations. Other than that, it's the result of over a million words of discussion here -- discussion that has consumed an enormous effort. No, the article is not biased against Gamergate. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think we both know you're heavily biased and wrong here (the article most certainly is biased against GamerGate, and I'm not even a GamerGate supporter!). But I don't have the time, energy, or influence to debate this, so I'm going to return to the Military section of Misplaced Pages, where we keep things neutral, constantly question the bias of ourselves and our fellow editors, and aim to create an objective encyclopedic entry on the topic at hand. If you can live with yourself destroying the legitimacy and objectivity of Misplaced Pages, then sure, go ahead. But I won't pretend to agree with you. Heaney5551 (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
While the article does not present Gamergators views of themselves as a noble movement preserving the sanctity of gaming through its activities of routing out corruption in gaming journalism, that doesn't mean the article is biased. It just means that the reliable sources dont buy gamergators bullshit and so we dont either. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Checking for neutrality (and other stuff)

Ok here I go. I'll be ignoring the lede because people spend far too much time focusing ont he lede and ignoring the rest of the article.

History section

In general "Gamergate activities" and the history sections are seperate, despite the activities of Gamergate in many cases being a part of the history (Intel withdrawing and unwithdrawing advertising, TFYC, other email campaigns against advertisers). The history section should mention these events some of which were important parts of the history of the controversy. Either that or perhaps it should be renamed "History of harassment"? Although that would still be unrepresentative of the content of the section. There is definitely some form of restructuring that should be done here.
top Seems a good representation of the sources in question, I can't think of anything in the RSs which could be introduced that wouldn't be undue.
Gamergate hashtag The sentence starting "Early users of the term "gamergate" sought to define certain media coverage..." is not in the source, and needs to be changed, or given a source that represents these views ASAP.
Subsequent harassment The paragraph starting "Various people, some of whom requested to remain anonymous" details harassment against Gamergate supporters. It for some reason mentions a petition against Baldwin which nobody describes as harassment and shouldnt be there. This could be replaced by a sentence detailing the harassment faced by Gamergate supporter Lizzyf as described in the sources, or some of the other cases of harassment and doxing detailed in the Reason source.

Social and cultural implications

top Neither BBC nor First Things explicitly refer to the dispute as a "culture war" is it WP:SYNTH for us to describe it thus, or is it the equivalent of using a source describing soccer to write an article on association football? I dunno. Although some of the first bit is definitely not in the sources cited . While the Vox article mentions that "Every single question of journalistic ethics #GamerGate has brought up has either been debunked or dealt with" the stuff about not focusing on major publishers is not in the source cited (I do remember an article by Erik Kain on the topic however if someone can find it).
Gamer identity This section should be cut down. Too much of the section focuses on background information which should be in the gamer article instead. The bit about "Gamers are dead" should be expanded a bit. Possible sources to use include Vox and the Escapist.
Misogyny and sexism The Astra Taylor article is not relevant to Gamergate and should be removed. In the sentence starting "Simon Parkin observed..." is implying Parkin's interpretation of events is the objectively correct one. Otherwise pretty decent section.

I'll finish looking through the other half of the article later. Would appreciate opinions from other people. Thank youBosstopher (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from others

Categories:
Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign): Difference between revisions Add topic